Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars
| PentecostalTheology.com
149
and what it means to be saved.
One dimension of salvation that some traditional
theologies
have slighted
is the salvation of the world. Our koinonia exists for the sake of the world’s salvation,
according
to the
Scriptures.
And that
salvation,
in Catholic
thought,
is
complete
liberation from sin and all its effects- from the
injustice
and
violence, too.
What does it mean for Catholics and Pentecostals to be such a koinonia
serving
God’s
plan
for the total liberation of all God’s
people?
That’s a question that all of us who talk about the Church could well reflect on more
fully.
Fr. Frank Colborn,
Chaplain Claremont
University
Center 919 N. Columbia
Claremont,
CA 91711
Perspectives
on A Roman Catholic
Koinonia:
Response
Perspectives
on Koinonia offers a model of the
way
in which serious ecumenical
dialogue among
Christians can and
ought
to
happen.
It carefully
delineates areas of
agreement
and
honestly
indicates areas of belief in which
theological
consensus continues to elude Catholics and Pentecostals.
.
.
Given the
assigned brevity
of this
response,
I would like in these paragraphs
to focus on three issues of disagreement that have
emerged from the
dialogue
between Catholics and Pentecostals on the
meaning
of . koinonia. I choose these issues for
discussion,
not in order
to’heighten the
disagreement
but in order to
suggest possible paths
of
dialogue
that . might eventually
resolve them. I have selected the issues of canonicity, church,
and sacraments.
‘ ‘
‘
1.
‘
Canonicity
Perspectives
on Koinonia,
(19)
indicates that Catholics and Pente- costals continue to
disagree
on the canon of the
Scriptures.
The doc- ument notes that while Catholics and Orthodox Christians share the same
canon, Pentecostals
follow the canon
adopted by
the Reformation Churches.
The
problem
of canonicity remains a vexing one because the establish- ment of a scriptural canon within
any
Christian church
always
functions as a
self-fulfilling prophecy.
Once a community includes a particular book of the Bible in its list of
inspired
books,
it will thereafter
experi- ence that book as inspired. If it excludes a particular book of the Bible from its list of
inspired books,
it will thereafter
experience
the book as not
inspired.
1
150
In such a situation,
clearly
the mere
comparison
of canonical lists leads nowhere. The lists do not match. We know that. We have known it for centuries. As
long
as ecumenical discourse remains restricted to the mere comparison
of lists, it will
clearly go
nowhere.
Dialogue might, however, begin
to
go somewhere,
if Catholics and Pentecostals
began
to
explore
in
greater
detail more basic
questions.
I mean
questions
like: What does the term
canonicity
mean? How in fact have Catholics and Orthodox established their norms for Biblical canonicity,
on the one hand, and how have the Reformation churches in fact established their
norms,
on the other? How
ought
one to understand the
relationship
between what one means
by
Biblical
inspiration,
on the one
hand,
and
canonicity,
on the other?
In such a discussion, two fundamental tasks face us.
First,
we need to use
history
in order to contextualize the
way
in which both Catholics and Pentecostals came to identify certain Christian
writings
as canonical and to exclude others from the same canon.
Second,
we need to evaluate the comparative adequacy
of the norms invoked
by each community
in the establishment of a Biblical canon.
In assessing the different norms for Biblical
canonicity
invoked either by Catholics or by the churches of
the
Reformation, we need to take care not to confuse
problems
of truth with
problems
of
adequacy. Questions of truth concern the
validity
or invalidity of
particular propositions.
For example,
in the
present
instance, any reflection on Biblical
canonicity must address the
question:
“Is the letter of James
inspired by
the
Holy Spirit?” Questions
of
adequacy, however, look,
not to particular propo- sitions, but to
the frames of reference, the tacit
assumptions,
within which
particular propositions
find assertion. In order to reflect intelli- gently
on the norms one’s
community
invokes for
establishing
the canonicity
of
specific
books of the
Bible,
both Catholics and Pente- costals need in my opinion to clarify their
understanding
of the relation- ship
between what each communion means
by canonicity
and
inspira- tion.
Since, moreover,
we need
greater clarity
on this
question
in both churches,
real
dialogue
on this issue
ought
to be possible.
2. Church:
Perspectives
on Koinonia.
(29-32)
notes
correctly
that Catholics and Pentecostals view church communion
differently,
that Catholics tend to stress the
God-givenness
of koinonia, while Pentecostals tend to ground koinonia in an experience of personal
repentance
and faith.
It seems to me that here both churches have
grasped
two profound and interrelated truths and need to
appropriate
more
systematically
one another’s
insight.
Catholics need to insist more
systematically
than
they have that
genuine
Christian communion roots itself in
integral
conver- sion before God. In
stressing
the
God-givenness
of Christian com- munion, however, Catholics,
it seems to
me,
have
grasped
another profound
truth:
namely,
that conversion never occurs in a vacuum and
2
.
151
occur in an
already existing
of its life
together, by
its
that it does, under
ordinary circumstances,
community
of faith that
provides by
the
quality
openness
to the charisms of the
Spirit,
and
by Spirit-filled
character of its worship the matrix of divine
grace
within which
personal
conversion
occurs
initially
and advances.
‘
Catholics and Pentecostals con-
‘ .
3. Sacraments.
As the
present
document
indicates,
tinue to disagree in the
language they
invoke to describe ritual
worship. The fact
remains, however,
that
many
Catholics have rediscovered the
meaning
of Catholic sacramental
refuses
giving Spirit
consensus on
worship through participation
in
of
charismatic
prayer.
That fact
suggests
to me that at the level of the actual experience
of shared
worship
Catholics and Pentecostals
may
not in fact differ as much as their
respective theological
and
disciplinary
traditions lead them
currently
to believe.
I do not mean to
suggest
that one can dissociate one’s
experience worship
from
the language
one uses to describe such
worship.
On the contrary,
the two churches here face a problem of canonicity analogous to the one discussed above. A church which canonizes certain ritual as sacramental will thereafter
experience
it as sacramental; a church which
to canonize certain rituals as sacramental will
subsequently
fail to experience
them as sacramental.
I
am, however, suggesting
that the Catholic sacraments do seek to bring
to shared ritual
expression, experiences
of the
sanctifying, gift-
that can occur outside of a
sacramental,
ritual context. It seems to
me, therefore,
that an
exploration
of those
experiences might provide
an
important
foundation for
eventually reaching
some kind of
the
meaning
and
purpose
of Christian ritual.
In this matter Pentecostals need to reflect more
systematically
than
they have heretofore on the rituals that structure their shared
prayer.
Daniel
candidate at the Graduate
Theological
such a
study.
It
should, when
it finally
comes to publication,
provide
an important basis for a Catholic- Pentecostal
dialogue
on the
meaning
and
purpose
of shared Christian
for if this
study
should
prove,
as I suspect it will, that Catholic and Pentecostal rituals
express analogous experiences
of shared wor-
the two churches
might
find it easier to search for a common theo-
for talking about those
experiences.
Albrecht, a Pentecostal doctoral Union,
has
already
undertaken
worship;
ship,
logical language
just
Fr. Donald L.
Gelpi,
S.J.
Jesuit School of Theology at Berkeley
1735 LeRoy
Avenue Berkeley,
CA 94709
Editor’s note: Daniel Albrecht, a member of the SPS, serves as Associate Professor
Christian Spirituality at Bethany College in Santa Cruz, California.
of
3
